The Matrioshka Divide Review

Intrigue and Suspense

The Matrioshka Divide establishes a steady pace based on intrigue early in the story. The Milky Way has received an old signal from a colonization ship that was sent to the Andromeda galaxy centuries ago. No other transmissions have been received, no clarification given. The Free Exchange—a bureaucratic organization that covertly controls the (relatively) local protectorates—is launching an expedition to investigate.

The uncertainty of first contact drives the suspense: the knowledge that whatever happens, whatever mistakes are made, things are about to change in unpredictable ways. But already, the Free Exchange is working to control the outcome by manipulating people.  One of the foundational pieces of the setting is the idea that humanity discovered how to reduce political and social interactions to an exact science:

“We can control the laws of gravity. Do you really think it would be so much harder to control the human mind? It’s all a matter of incentives. People will take the option that most benefits them. It was the sciences’ task to just predict it.”

As the reader is exposed to the major players in the story, the intrigue layers additional questions of hidden motivations and misunderstandings, all of which contribute to possible ways things could go wrong and increase reader interest. When things really do begin to go wrong in exciting ways, the intrigue element remains because the reader is trying to pinpoint whether or not the Free Exchange intentionally steered them to this outcome and then how the characters will throw off their predictions and manipulations.

Complex Characters

The cast of characters is on the larger side, but everyone is tied to their role or function on the ship, so it is not difficult to keep them straight. The importance of interpersonal relationships and individual motivations to the questions of intrigue and manipulation mean that this broad group feels a bit like an ensemble cast out of a SyFy television production. It should be noted, however, that the interpersonal tension never devolves into soap opera subplots; it is all focused on the main plot, not sexual drama.

The captain is probably the closest to the main protagonist. He is a veteran with the unfortunate moniker “Butcher” due to a choice that he made in his past to end a war by sacrificing innocents. But his character is defined by honesty and a deeply personal faith, making him the most heroic character.

Erika Terese is the primary antagonist. She is a scientist looking for ways to move into a “post-human” utopia. Her goals are clear enough to be compelling, and her resentment towards the Free Exchange makes her marginally likable. The reader does not necessarily want her to succeed at any point, but there is a desire for her to grow and become a better person.

Natural Exploration of Deep Questions

Filling a novel with well-developed characters and a plot that relies on intrigue and nuance of motivations results in extremely natural conversations about some of the deep thematic questions. All of the characters are pushing and pulling in any given conversation—not scoring rhetorical points in some hypothetical debate.

Even the priest Father Soren never becomes a theological mouthpiece when he challenges Erika’s ideas. Instead, it is his faith itself that serves as a foil to her. Most of the specific mentions of God come from the captain, but it is so personal that it never feels like a lecture on some wider application.

Fate vs. Free Will

Due the Free Exchange’s ability to predict events and influence people, the philosophical question of free will arises as central to throwing off their control. But characters are trapped in the predictability of their own choices, unable to behave in a way contrary to themselves.

Miles Kieth, the pilot with a cowboy hat, feels particularly ensnared by the Free Exchange. He is forced to do their dirty work but desires to be free. He concludes that he must change himself—become someone they do not predict him to be, someone who does not care about the things used to manipulate him—but he struggles to understand how he can do it.

Discussed in relation to this are some Biblical concepts, never stated as such. The priest tells Miles, “Humans are slaves. We spend our lives in service to someone—or something…Everyone has a master.” He manages to communicate this clearly, as well as the importance of choosing what master to serve, without quoting scripture, and then leaves Miles to wrestle with how to apply this in his own life.

Providence

The captain also struggles to wrest control of his life away from the Free Exchange, but his faith puts him in a different position. Rather than feeling that his actions are futile, he believes there is value in doing the right thing, even if he doesn’t “win.” When his men face death with him, he thinks, “Guided either by the hand of God or the Free Exchange, they still chose their fate…No matter the Free Exchange’s grip on humanity, there was honor in these men. Moreover, there was honor in their cause.”

The story’s conclusion seems to be that free will is largely an illusion, but that does not make the choices of the individual characters less important, good or bad. But the question is not rushed. It is a difficult concept, and the characters’ experiences allow that.

In the end, the name of the derelict alien ship is translated to Providence. It offers them freedom from the Free Exchange on both practical and symbolic levels.

Utopia

Erika is not looking for freedom, but utopia. Interestingly, she runs into some of the same roadblocks. From her research she realizes, “The problem isn’t technology, or politics, or culture. It’s with Man.” Progress towards a perfect future is prevented by human nature, so her conclusion is that “the next revolution wasn’t a change in the surrounding environment, but something different in man.” This leads her to seek ways to improve humanity.

Father Soren becomes her philosophical adversary. The Free Will Paradox comes up in their conversation, but that is not really where the priest rests his case. It would be a bit of a weak a position considering the how irrelevant free will is in their society. Instead, he directs the conversation inward.

“We can only really make one individual better in our lifetimes—ourselves…If you can’t make yourself better, then what makes you think you can make the rest of humanity better? Before you go and make your utopia, why don’t you make yourself perfect first? The problem is not your perfect society. It’s who can bring us there.”

“Who can bring us there” has an obvious answer to the Christian, but the dialogue stops short of giving it to Erika. Instead, her reflections acknowledge that she is not perfect and lacks the ability to make perfect things. “If one could somehow create the perfect person…utopia would come easily enough.”

Once again, we see the characters engaging complex ideas. Every quote I’ve pulled here comes late in the second act. They do not represent the pinnacle of the character arcs or the defining argument in their respective dialogues. Instead, they lay out the principles that the climax of the story will turn on. It avoids being heavy-handed and keeps every element focused on the central conflict.

Check Out The Matrioshka Divide!

The Matrioshka Divide is a gripping sci-fi that explores complex ideas about the human condition in an unpretentious and action-focused way. I look forward to reading more from Isaac Young!